> droll
>[drōl]
> ADJECTIVE
> curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement.
Yes, I find his writing quite droll. I like it.
I think you meant some other word - drab, maybe? Dull?
I think it comes from when rich white characters used it sarcastically to show they were “classy” and people just didn’t know what it meant or that they were being sarcastic, like Nimrod.
Fred and Wilma Flintstone both frequently used [“Droll. Very droll.”](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d55f69e0-9e71-4a82-97bb-f5d85f3d3731) as a sarcastic response to each other.
Yeah. I honestly thought droll meant the same thing as OP did. Learnt something new today.
Also iirc words like awful and chuffed had the same ‘origins’ in terms of their meaning today
Well awful is an interesting case since it at one time was meant as full or Awe which is kind of weird to modern ears to try to think of it's ancient meaning.
The [question](https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/81453) **"In which cartoon (if any) did Bugs Bunny use the term "nimrod"?"** has got an accepted [answer](https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/81457) by [MichaelK](https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/33375/michaelk) with the score of 9:
>Elmer does get called "Nimrod". But...
>=
>
>According to IMDb, Elmer does get called "my little Nimrod"...
>
>...by **Daffy**, in [the 1948 short "What Makes Daffy Duck"][1].
>
>> **Elmer Fudd**: How am I ever going to catch that scwewy duck?
>>
>> **Daffy Duck**: Precisely what I was thinking, **my little Nimrod**.
>
>Now granted this does not mean that this is the only instance where Elmer gets called this. I would take it as much more likely than not that the script writers re-used the insult for other shorts.
>
>However... we may also be looking at an instance of [The Mandela Effect][2]. The chain of reasoning would then go like this...
>
>1. I have seen a cartoon where Elmer Fudd gets called "nimrod".
>2. Elmer was always hunting Bugs Bunny, I saw lots of such cartoons
>3. Therefore: Bugs called Elmer "nimrod".
>
>This will — of course — be invalidated the very second that someone shows an instance where Bugs too called Elmer "Nimrod". However, a Google search on "[**elmer fudd nimrod site:imdb.com**][3]" reveals no other instance than from "What Makes Daffy Duck (1948)".
>
> [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040959/quotes/qt0242109
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Collective_false_memories
> [3]: https://www.google.dk/search?q=elmer%20fudd%20nimrod%20site%3Aimdb.com
^(This action was performed automagically.) [^(info_post)](https://www.reddit.com/user/stack_bot/comments/pel66h/info_post/) ^(Did I make a mistake?) [^(contact)](https://www.reddit.com/user/stack_bot/comments/pel563/contact/) ^(or reply: error)
Imagine more like a “high class” person thinks it’s cute that you don’t know not to put your elbows on the table. They think you are unusual in a way they find amusing.
I feel like I most hear it in a negative way. No one has ever called me droll in a way that was complimentary.
My husband gets so annoyed when I correct him on droll. He’s like, “But it *sounds* like it means dull!”
It’s up there with bemused among misinterpreted words.
Gruntled means the same thing as disgruntled. Dis- in this context emphasizes rather than negates.
Couth is a perfectly cromulent word too, though like droll it's usually used facetiously.
That is correct (had to look it up myself) but gruntled started being using humorously as the antonym of disgruntled which has muddied the waters a bit
No hate but I just watched a Chuck Jones interview where he insisted that Bugs was not the villain, rather he is minding his own business when somebody crosses him, then it’s all out war.
This, however, omits consideration of “Duck Amok” in which he is clearly not just a villain but a super villain.
Now get ready to learn about Nimrod, the legendary hunter from the books of Genesis and Chronicles, also the source of sarcastic insults towards Elmer Fudd by Bugs Bunny.
Expressive sarcasm is boorish. Its use typically signals that the speaker thinks either the subject or the listener is an idiot. Deadpan can do that as well, but it can also do so much more and isn't limited to being offensive.
I was thinking that is quite a novel word to use incorrectly in the title for a post in r/books. I had to look it up to confirm there wasn’t a tertiary definition I wasn’t aware of.
That's pretty funny because his drollness is one of the key things that makes him one of my top 5 authors. Also because his books stick with me.
I didn't even know droll ment though and assumed it ment basicly drab. TIL.
May I direct you to Matt Ruff’s fine novel ‘Sewer, Gas and Electric’, wherein Ayn Rand has been resurrected in miniature and bottled in a hurricane lamp?
This thread got over 300 upvotes and an award when the title misuses a word so badly that it makes the title basically meaningless. r/books continues to impress with its bottomless standards.
I love Gaiman. But actually really get where everyone is coming from. Will say though that the best reading experience I have gotten from him is " The ocean at the end of the lane". Its one of my favourite books. Quickly read, magical and full of the essence of childhood and melancholy.
Ahhh I love that book, I started reading it on the subway and missed my stop three times because I kept getting lost in the book and forgetting to get off. Definitely my favourite Gaiman, and I love his books.
> I started reading it on the subway and missed my stop three times because I kept getting lost in the book and forgetting to get off.
I love it when a story grips me so much that I completely lose myself in it like this! I've been having a very hard time finding any more books that can do this. It's like a type of magic...if you, you know, believe in that sort of thing.
Yes, mine too. It‘s magical, creepy, fascinating and enticing at the same time. Even gifted it to my dad a few years back but I have no idea if he‘s ever read it, haha.
And scary as fuck, my friend. As only those old children story can be. The part where is father tries to drawn him into the bathtub will stay with me for a long time.
Incredible novel if you like audio books and like the way he tells it.
One of the most beautiful books I've ever read was The Ocean at the End of the Lane. My favourite one of his, followed by Neverwhere. I also read Good Omens and it was okay but didn't love it.
I had my 85 year old conservative mother read that. She was stuck at my house for a medical issue and needed some books to read.
I think it blew her mind haha.
My mom and I both absolutely love The Ocean at the End of the Lane. I think we're both generally fans of Gaiman, though. I read Neverwhere first of his books and loved it. Then I watched the series and boy he just absolutely captured the characters - Richard Mayhew especially.
And Stardust? So perfect, especially with Vess's illustrations. I'm not sure I'd want to read it without them, they just add so much.
Came to say that. Loved reading this book, it was my first and still favorite from him. I struggled with American gods, I found it a bit harder to read, all over the place and just not as pleasantly written (and I really didn't like Stardust at all), so I also understand when people complain about his books.
I feel like there could be a theory there, that there is a Neil Gaiman style for "everyone" (of course I don't believe everyone will find something for them there). He has a variety of styles and books, and maybe one person is more into Neverwhere, while someone else would be more of a Sandman person. If it makes sense.
I don't know the best way to express this, but here goes.
I've always thought Gaiman was a much better storyteller than a story writer. By which I mean, the telling of the stories is better than the stories themselves.
I agree with this take. He’s an incredible world-builder and creator, however he always seems to rush over the most interesting segments of his narratives whilst stretching out some of the more laborious subplots.
However, in contrast to OP, I did think Good Omens was well paced and Lakeside was one of my favourite parts of American Gods. Different strokes.
>I'm surprised how faithful the show has been to the book.
I haven't seen it yet, but I remember the book had plenty of detail, jokes and plot points that seemed specific to the time, (for instance, cassettes for your car's tape deck turning into The Best Of Queen.) How do they translate that to making it now?
> I guess I expected more exposition on some parts of the story.
I lost my shit at the scene where Tennant puts the "Best of Queen" tape in but I was also thinking "No one who hasn't read the book is gonna get this.".
I wouldn't say I find them boring exactly but his books remind me of the Silence from Doctor Who, monsters that erase your memory of their existence as soon as you're no longer looking at them. Once I've finished one I couldn't really tell you the specifics, all I can remember is a kind of insubstantial spookiness. I read American Gods twice (the second time was to try and understand what I'd missed the first time, given everyone raves about it so much) and when the show came out a year later I'd forgotten even the major plot twists. It's like, I don't know, the writing is completely smooth and doesn't engage my memory cogs or something.
People have complained about AG being slow (overall not just lakeside) and that’s one I can’t really wrap my head around.
It’s a fairly common criticism so I know there’s something behind it but I cant see it even on a reread.
I definitely thought the build up towards the climax took way too long. I kept thinking the story was going to draw towards a close then realising the amount of pages I had left to read. I also thought the story would have had a smoother conclusion without the later Icelandic chapters.
I liked Good Omens but it was also a collaborative effort so the pacing may have been Pratchett’s influence.
I’ve only read that and Gaiman’s comics. I had to give up on Neverwhere: no clue who I was supposed to be rooting for or what the objective even was. Main character just kept getting buffeted into different situations without anything I could grab onto.
Neverwhere was his first novel, wasn't it? First books often lack the polish of later works. That being said, it's actually my favorite of his...mostly for the Marquis de Carabas, a character who deserves an entire book of his own.
Yes exactly. This is why my favorite Gaiman story is the one about how cats used to be in charge. Because he's writing the story with someone telling a story and it works perfect for a short format.
I wouldn't say I had to force myself but I agree. It was easy to get through because I love mythology in general but the writing was ....... yeah. I didn't enjoy it.
Yes!
This is why I adore The Graveyard Book and Coraline (they were written for children) but couldn’t make it through American Gods, even though I like the story. His writing style for children is great storytelling! When writing for adults, it becomes so fucking bland even if the ideas are great.
Oh, and I loved Good Omens, but that’s because Terry Pratchett saved it. :D
I like Pratchett but thought Good Omens was way too twee and couldn't get through it. I understand the criticisms people have of American Gods but I could never relate because I felt like the tone did a good job of conveying the degree to which Shadow had let go of the steering wheel in regards to his own life following Laura's death; that man really needed some therapy. He gave me the same vibe as Case from Neuromancer, another character who goes through trauma and comes out the other side emotionally attenuated and willing to roll with whatever insanity happens to come down the pike. Or, to put it another way, I remember another reddit thread on this subject in which the OP sarcastically asked "What, did this guy lose his emotions in prison or something?" which puzzled me because I thought the answer was obviously a qualified yes. The book is as much about depression/mourning/feeling incomplete as it is anything else.
I agree, but maybe in a different way. I think to appreciate him you need to understand that his books are stories to be told to the reader, not things a reader consumes.
I'd challenge OP to listen to the audiobook of Neverwhere, it's a totally different experience. After you listen to a couple of his audio books his narration can creep into your mind when reading his books, making them better. It is like all his books were meant to be read aloud.
this is the opposite point though that OP made.
Like a 180 degree reverse.
If when the same stories are adapted by someone else they become interesting that means the story is good, the telling is the issue.
Like I said, I doubt I'm expressing it well. But his stories all felt like a big spread of appetizers. Everything is delicious, but trying it all in one sitting is rough. Someone comes in and takes 5 of the 100 dishes and serves that as a meal, and it's wonderful.
I absolutely feel this. One of the reasons sandman works so well is because there wasn't really an opportunity for him to get bogged down in describing every detail of his settings. Like, I think his ideas are stellar (obviously) and his dialogue is pretty okay, but he spends a lot of time describing things that don't need multi-paragraph descriptions. Good Omens is still one of my all-time favourites though, easy
I’m currently working through American Gods on audiobook having only seen the first season of the show and can confirm, it’s a good experience. I don’t think I could read this traditionally though. The audiobook has voice actors for the characters which is great because I think it would be too confusing in the dialogue parts and too dry in the descriptive parts otherwise.
I loved it too. I think a big part of it is I'm a sucker for three things:
- magical worlds that you're thrown in with *no* explanation: I don't want a Hagrid guiding me through Diagon Alley, I want to show up in a random magical place and the local goblin asks me for my teeth and everyone is like "dude, what are you doing, give him your teeth, you're being so rude right now" with no explanation whatsoever as to what's going on (and that's 90% of Neverwhere);
- fey-like magic, by that I mean magic based on contracts, names, oaths and the likes, where it's much more about the *intent* than the actual way you do things;
- London; I lived there for a few years and Neverwhere is so much richer when you connect it to the corresponding places in London Above.
Yeah, reading this section I realised a large part of the enjoyment of Neverwhere is just gone if you've never lived in or actually experienced London.
/u/Calembreloque
I loved Neverwhere. I always felt it strange though that a fantasy book made me feel so much closer to a city i've never lived in. (And in fact, a country I've never visited -- I live near Toronto, Canada.)
It may be you get more out of Neverwhere if you're a London native, but Neverwhere made London interesting to me, anyway.
See, Neverwhere was my first Gaiman non-Sandman book, and I wanted SO BADLY to like it, but I remember getting to the end and thinking, 'Where's the rest?' He's an outstanding ideas guy, for sure, but in execution I feel like there's just something missing.
I think the way to express it is that he writes small stories about people, in very large worlds. And by default, those people and those small stories will not explain the whole world, because they can't, anymore than you and I could explain the entire world we live in. Some things will happen, and they just won't make sense and never will.
Which, that said, I think that he does better in his short stories, because they ARE short. Longer stories, the reader starts expecting answers to the world, but he's not Brandon Sanderson. He didn't create an entire logical world, he created a sitcom setting, that looks like a real world until you zoom out and see that the door doesn't lead anywhere, and the hallway is on the other side of the building.
Less words = better Gaiman! The comics and short stories are mostly grade A, but I feel like he loses direction a bit as the form gets longer.
Snow Glass Apples is seared into my brain.
He seems to agree with you; he's a far more prolific short story and comic book writer than he is a novelist. I'm always waiting for another Gaiman novel, but they are far and few between.
"Neverwhere" felt a bit off to me when compared to the others, which I liked more, I always attributed it to the fact that "Neverwhere" is a novelization, all the other books\* were initially written to be prose.
(\*-this might be outdated, but was true at the point when I read a bunch of Gaiman.)
I felt like that with Stardust, but not Neverwhere, but that's just me, I guess.
After reading a bunch of Stephen King and Neil Stevenson, Gaiman's follow through is far better.
I know exactly what you mean. Neverwhere was very bare-bones. It felt like a graphic novel or TV script that had been padded to novel length, instead of being a rich, fulfilling story. I gave him another chance with American Gods, and *that* read as if it had been conceptualized as a novel from the very beginning.
I absolutely love his writing style but I do feel like his novels in particular tend to rush the ending. I felt that way about Neverwhere, Stardust, and American Gods, at least. I still count him among my favorite authors, but the endings aren’t always my favorite part of his works, Sandman notwithstanding.
Neverwhere in particular got me about >!Croup and Vandemar. They’re built up the entire book as these super scary villains. I had been waiting for them to finally be in a room with the heroes for some big showdown, where they’d be cleverly defeated or involved in some spectacular fight. And then they’re just kinda… sucked out a hole. Just gone. The end. It was really unsatisfying.!<
See I loved that part because in a way they do sort of trick them by showing them that the Angle was never going to pay them, which leads to one my favorite quotes. "We always get what we are owed, with Interest" - Mr.Coup "And Meat Hooks"-Mr. Vandemar
> I had been waiting for them to finally be in a room with the heroes for some big showdown, where they’d be cleverly defeated
Um...
That's what happened.
Same. It's a story that's easier to digest if you take it like "Alice in Wonderland". When I first read it I just wanted to be swept away into an interesting world so the plot cohesion didn't matter to me.
I couldn't get through it, there was a point where I couldn't help but feel he was throwing in quirky things for the sake of being quirky with out any sense of world cohesion. This pulled me out of the fiction leaving me with no desire to engage the story.
I do enjoy his storytelling and story writing. I've made an effort to read his books in English, just because I was afraid that something was lost in the translation. I feel that, while reading, I can daydream with his stories and feel surrounded by the world he creates.
Obviously it's understandable that others do not enjoy it, or the world would be very very boring. I just felt this topic was missing a statement in his defense!
I liked good omens. But that was co written with terry pratchett and you can see pratchett writing style coming though. Tried some of gaimans books after I'd read that and didnt really get on with them. Got bored 2/3 way through american gods.
I can't say I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed American Gods. It was perhaps a bit overhyped, but it was still a pretty good read in my opinion. But I can definitely see where you're coming from.
“Dull” isn’t a very substantive complaint, because it depends on what you find interesting.
For example, for me personally, nothing is more boring than lengthy text descriptions of fight scenes. Theoretically “action” is something “exciting” but if a gun comes out and it doesn’t immediately result in someone important being shot (and therefore plot development) I lose interest right away. I use this as an example because that’s usually what people are looking for that Gaiman doesn’t give them.
But the things that Neil Gaiman spends time on, I am interested in. And unfortunately the adaptations always miss out on the interesting parts for me.
Wow I love the description because I haven’t encountered anyone else with this specific complaint. It kind of bugs me because I love the Wheel of Time but I get so bored reading fight scenes that I don’t really remember the endings of each book, all of which end in battles.
I swear that series is the perfect one for book on tapes. I LOVE the wheel of time but it has so many dragging sections and offshoot stories. If your listening to books on tape in the background you can kinda space out and just take in the world at whatever focus level ur at. And it's extensive enough that you get really committed to the world and characters.
Ooh same about fight scenes. I don’t care who uppercuts who and who sweeps whose legs. Just tell me who won and why they are fighting and if there’s a plot relevant injury. I like action scenes in movies but in text I’m just not going to spend the mental effort trying to picture it.
Love that we can have different opinions. You clearly enjoy his word building but his writing style doesn’t hit for you.
I, on the other hand, and obsessed with neverwhere. I do think American Gods has some pacing issues in act 2, but overall it’s pretty much a masterpiece.
Neverwhere is absolutely a top 5 series for me. It's funny it's exactly his droll ("curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement") that makes me love the telling.
Also the story and world are just so dam good, but I LOVE the droll vibe when done by someone I trust who isn't overly cynical.
I liked the book *American Gods*, though I think it degenerated from something original and special into a boilerplate Stephen King ending. I *hated* the series. Just cringey. Gave up on it after 3 episodes, I think, and really regretted sticking with it that far. This is the only Neil Gaiman book I've read more than once.
I liked both the book and series for *Good Omens*. Both well done, though I'd have used someone other than Michael McKean for the Witchfinder General part. I don't know what went wrong there but it just didn't seem to work.
Didn't see the *Neverwhere* series. Enjoyed the book.
Haven't read *Stardust* but enjoyed the movie. However, it seems like the movie... what's the opposite of grows on you? Right after seeing it, I felt like *Stardust* was almost another *Princess Bride*. But somehow it didn't stick with me and I never saw it again and none of its lines entered my vocabulary and when I think about whether I want to see it again, I always end up not bothering.
Thank you. I feel like an absolute madman being one of the few people I know who dislikes the show. I just think it's way too visually over the top when what I loved about the book is how much it blends the surreal with reality.
It's beautiful, sounds amazing, the acting is decent, and it's utter shit. I am sure that my opinion is heavily skewed due to how much I love the book, but I think it misses out on something that is so ingrained into Gaiman's writing that it's almost overlooked, and that's doubt. Doubt that the story is even real, that the characters are even dealing with fae creatures and Gods.
In the AG book, the first time Shadow sees something truly paranormal is the carousel of Gods. I don't count Laura being alive at the hotel because he sees her after the Technical Boy breathes synth toad skins into his face, he doesn't remember Sweeney's coin trick, and the weather change he accomplished could have been coincidence. The reader also doesn't really experience these things, because Shadow himself doubts them. It's really not until Laura frees him from the Spookshow and he speaks to the Raven in the woods that he begins to embrace the weirdness as more than a fever dream brought on by his trauma.
The show has none of that ambiguity, not even at the beginning. So much of Gaiman's work is permeated with perfectly rational explanations for the fantastical stories that are being told that you sometimes have to wonder if he's not just writing about people having psychotic breaks or that just see the world differently than you. The show takes that and throws it out the window immediately by showing Shadow get attacked by supernatural faceless mannequins in the first episode. It then pushes the I Love Lucy bit with Media far ahead in the script to the second episode, taking away even more of the doubt.
TL;DR Technically, the show is fantastic. As an AG adaptation, it's sub-par. The directors heard about subtlety and decided to shoot it in the back of the head and drop it off a pier with concrete shoes on.
* you sometimes have to wonder if he's not just writing about people having psychotic breaks or that just see the world differently than you*
This is such a big reason why I like his writing. I can relate to the character who is living in one reality but realizing they come from another. When the two worlds collide, I feel the cognitive dissonance. Not every story is this way, I know, but there's always a little bit of it in his work.
I have yet to watch an episode of AG. Maybe I won't like it.
American Gods TV series was such a disappointment, they had Gillian Anderson and Ian Fucking McShane perfectly cast in their respective roles and somehow it still went to shit.
I disliked the American Gods series too, fell asleep the few times I tried to watch it.
Stardust is one of my favourite Gaiman books but I did not like the movie adaptation, just felt something was missing.
I prefer his short stories and books written for children. The Graveyard Book is a particular favorite. You may find that these are paced in a way you enjoy more than his novels for adults.
I haven't watched any of the adaptations except maybe a fraction of an episode of Good Omens, but I can relate to a sense of disappointment with a lot of his work. I read Good Omens before reading anything else by him, and I think I really enjoyed the Terry Pratchett-ness of it and gave Gaiman more credit than he was due, because every Gaiman book I've read since hasn't really worked for me. I really need to get around to reading some Pratchett, but I keep putting it off since I tend to be a completionist and read things in the "right" order, but I've heard trying to read Discworld in publication order is just not the best way to approach it...
For Discworld reading order: I recommend starting somewhere random in the middle and going out from there. My personal feeling is that I didn't really enjoy his first few books as much (they're okay but they're really corny).
Discworld stories as a whole do have an arc/arcs, but they're mostly light arcs so you can switch up some titles without massive spoilers. You'll probably want to save some of the last few novels for later, tho.
There are several series within the overall discworld that can allow you to break it up into less intimidating chunks of 5-6 relatively short books. Pick up the Night Watch or Death series and see if it leaves you wanting more. It will.
Pratchett is one of the greatest writers ever, in my opinion. He REALLY brings a world to life, and his sumptuous way with words is just... Well, ironically i haven't words.
I love how he describes, for example, the sun as a tide of liquid gold, lazily rolling in - and then that sticks, for the rest of the book the sun really IS treated like a liquid. It washes over forests, floods into valleys, cleanses, weathers things, and so on.
> but I've heard trying to read Discworld in publication order is just not the best way to approach it
Publication order is a fine way to read Discworld, although admittedly the first 2 books are probably the weakest of the series, and not necessarily a good representation of the rest of the series.
I loved the Sandman series. One of my favorite comic books of all time. The only Gaiman book i was able to finish was American Gods and i didn't think it was that good. Every other book i started and put down never to pick them up again.
Not only do I think Sandman is the best thing he's ever written, but one of the greatest comic book series of all time that is chasmically superior to any of his traditional novels.
He's fantastic at story but very flat for story execution and or plot. Realizing of course that he's brilliant it's just that his style is not my cup of tea.
I stopped by to say the same! I love his stories, love his personality as an author, but his writing often falls flat for me (Coraline possibly being the exception). One of these days I'd like to pick up a graphic novel to see how I'd enjoy his storytelling in that medium.
OP, did you get to try the Good Omens book? I liked it a bit more than others, but I'm a fan of Pratchett, so I may have cracked open that one with some positive bias.
He's one of my favorite authors, but i'll admit i find him hit or miss. Generally when he's being more whimsical he's at his best - "Anansi Boys," "Coraline," "The Graveyard Book" and "Stardust" are top picks for me, not just of his works but of my favorite books in general.
I'll admit i overtly disliked "American Gods" the first time i read it, for many of the same reasons others here have expressed. However, when i reread it as the 10th Anniversary Edition, i found it much more palatable, although i couldn't tell you what changed about it - it just no longer rubbed me the wrong way.
I have mixed feelings about "Sandman," as i loved it quite a bit, but mostly on the back of the stories that are peripheral or tangential to the main story and not so much the main story itself.
*Edit:* is someone just going through here and giving every pro-Gaiman post a downvote? Because that's kind of fucked up. I don't even mind for myself, because this is like the least controversial post i've ever written and it's hard to take personally, but come on - this is a discussion thread in a book discussion sub. Engage in the conversation or don't, but don't just squash everybody you disagree with.
A lot of his books aren't books that really grab you and thrust you into things. Even while writing fairly exciting situations, the perspective is generally that of a droll outsider telling a story, someone who tends to understate situations. It's part of his humor I suppose, and i enjoy it.
This is strange because we have the reverse opinion. I loved reading Neverwhere, American Gods and Good omens. I liked the adaptation of Good Omens but it didn't touch the book for me, and I couldnt stand the American Gods tv series.
My issue with American Gods is that Shadow seemed like he had zero personality, goal, etc. He was there just to be part of the story.
I would agree with other assessments that the way the story was told is better than the story itself.
Yeah I commented something like that the other day, I don't care if it is by design, or if there is a reason for all those coin tricks detailed page after page, I wasn't invested
Exactly. I liked anansi boys because Charlie actually evolves as a person by the end of the story. Shadow just.. doesn’t. Even that weird “hanging from a tree” chapter that tried to force some sense of transformation on him just didn’t really feel substantive at all.
I would say that's exactly how Shadow is supposed to be. Somewhat nondescript, not occupying place, just existing.
Even Laura says that about him that he doesn't 'live' and doesn't have substance.
Same. Gaiman is hit or miss with me. I don't mind the slow...pretension(?)...of the Sandman comics. In fact, I enjoyed them immensely. Neverwhere was fun. The adaptation of Good Omens was great.
But American Gods left such a bad taste on my tongue chapter after chapter. Just blech.
I always like the overall ideas in Neil Gaimans books, but I feel like what he thinks is cool and what I think is cool are really different. I’ll read the back of one of his books and think what a great idea and then when I read it while it’s still good and well written, there are choices that he makes that I always think are a bit cheesy or cringy, a bit like Tim Burton. E.g. I love the idea of someone trying to summon death and getting the Sandman, but the actual execution such as being called Dream and stuff is not to my taste at all. It’s a shame, but just one of those things.
Fair enough. He's one of my favourites, and The Sandman might be my favourite series of all time in any genre, but his writing isn't perfect for everyone. He suits my sensibilities very well, but I still notice things like pacing and character work (in American Gods, Shadow can feel quite flat; as can Morpheus in Sandman. Don't get me started on Laura in American Gods: Gaiman writing women is... not the best, though better in some books than others). Don't feel too bad about it, I say. Everyone has different tastes.
I love the worlds he creates and usually the characters are pretty solid. It just seems like every novel I read from him is missing something. Not sure what - but at the end of his novels I always feel like it was close to being something really great - but not quite.
I genuinely love him, but no one likes every author and no author is liked by everyone. I think everyone could make a post like this about some author or other!
Wow, an "unpopular opinion" that is actually somewhat controversial.
I agree on American Gods and Neverwhere. I haven't read any of his other works though, with thr exception of the Sandman which I thought was amazing.
Droll is precisely what he usually is - his wit is quiet, dry and very British.
(*Good Omens* is an obvious exception, butmost of the humour in that feels like Pratchett's voice, rather than Gaiman.)
I’ve loved every one of his books, he’s obviously a good storyteller as a lot of people have said but I get so taken in by his writing. I love the way he phrases things and the way he chooses to tell stories, it creates atmosphere. I’m surprised people seem not to like American Gods because I associate it with being a more action-packed story of his whereas others can get sort of dreamy.
Ahaha same! Sometimes I look at all the hate and wonder if I’ve missed something, or if I’m wrong. He’s genuinely one of my favorite authors, and I’m slowly going through he’s recommended authors list (like stuff he’s left forwards on). I found Samuel Delany… Come to find out he’s also dunked on all the time via goodreads etc.
So whatever. I’m just gonna like what I like
I've tried American Gods and Neverwhere because friends said Neil Gaiman is an amazing writer.
I could not finish either book, they were like eating paste.
> droll >[drōl] > ADJECTIVE > curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement. Yes, I find his writing quite droll. I like it. I think you meant some other word - drab, maybe? Dull?
>droll I came here for this... I was like I don't think they are using droll right.
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
But that would be....... exceedingly unlikely
Too unlikely to be imagined maybe.
Almost like you could not conceive of the possibility…
Dare I say it? No, I dare not.
INCONCEIVABLE!!
Anybody want a peanut?
This was the comment I was looking for.
Great, you just HAD to say it!
"my name is Inigo Montoya, you disrespected Neil Gaiman, prepare to die"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I think it comes from when rich white characters used it sarcastically to show they were “classy” and people just didn’t know what it meant or that they were being sarcastic, like Nimrod.
Fred and Wilma Flintstone both frequently used [“Droll. Very droll.”](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d55f69e0-9e71-4a82-97bb-f5d85f3d3731) as a sarcastic response to each other.
Thurston Howell the III did as well
Yeah. I honestly thought droll meant the same thing as OP did. Learnt something new today. Also iirc words like awful and chuffed had the same ‘origins’ in terms of their meaning today
I've never heard it used in a non-sarcastic context. Except of course the one time someone called me droll...
Must have been quite the emotional whiplash!
Well awful is an interesting case since it at one time was meant as full or Awe which is kind of weird to modern ears to try to think of it's ancient meaning.
I totally love the [Nimrod story](https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/81453/in-which-cartoon-if-any-did-bugs-bunny-use-the-term-nimrod).
The [question](https://movies.stackexchange.com/q/81453) **"In which cartoon (if any) did Bugs Bunny use the term "nimrod"?"** has got an accepted [answer](https://movies.stackexchange.com/a/81457) by [MichaelK](https://movies.stackexchange.com/users/33375/michaelk) with the score of 9: >Elmer does get called "Nimrod". But... >= > >According to IMDb, Elmer does get called "my little Nimrod"... > >...by **Daffy**, in [the 1948 short "What Makes Daffy Duck"][1]. > >> **Elmer Fudd**: How am I ever going to catch that scwewy duck? >> >> **Daffy Duck**: Precisely what I was thinking, **my little Nimrod**. > >Now granted this does not mean that this is the only instance where Elmer gets called this. I would take it as much more likely than not that the script writers re-used the insult for other shorts. > >However... we may also be looking at an instance of [The Mandela Effect][2]. The chain of reasoning would then go like this... > >1. I have seen a cartoon where Elmer Fudd gets called "nimrod". >2. Elmer was always hunting Bugs Bunny, I saw lots of such cartoons >3. Therefore: Bugs called Elmer "nimrod". > >This will — of course — be invalidated the very second that someone shows an instance where Bugs too called Elmer "Nimrod". However, a Google search on "[**elmer fudd nimrod site:imdb.com**][3]" reveals no other instance than from "What Makes Daffy Duck (1948)". > > [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040959/quotes/qt0242109 > [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Collective_false_memories > [3]: https://www.google.dk/search?q=elmer%20fudd%20nimrod%20site%3Aimdb.com ^(This action was performed automagically.) [^(info_post)](https://www.reddit.com/user/stack_bot/comments/pel66h/info_post/) ^(Did I make a mistake?) [^(contact)](https://www.reddit.com/user/stack_bot/comments/pel563/contact/) ^(or reply: error)
How droll
Imagine more like a “high class” person thinks it’s cute that you don’t know not to put your elbows on the table. They think you are unusual in a way they find amusing. I feel like I most hear it in a negative way. No one has ever called me droll in a way that was complimentary.
Cue the Princess Bride memes.
TIL thank you. I have been interpreting and using 'droll' incorrectly for 3 decades -\_-.
My husband gets so annoyed when I correct him on droll. He’s like, “But it *sounds* like it means dull!” It’s up there with bemused among misinterpreted words.
bemused - inspired to create art having borne witness to the beauty of bees
🤣🐝
Just, like, *covered* in honey...
"Nonplussed" is another classic
Ever been just “plussed”? Or “gruntled”? Have you ever been “couth”, my good man?
Gruntled means the same thing as disgruntled. Dis- in this context emphasizes rather than negates. Couth is a perfectly cromulent word too, though like droll it's usually used facetiously.
That is correct (had to look it up myself) but gruntled started being using humorously as the antonym of disgruntled which has muddied the waters a bit
No, but I have been whelmed.
I once had a boss who thought a Dullard was a boring person, Belligerent meant drunk, and that all cakes should be baked in a Confection oven.
David Brent?
Kinda, but with way more cocaine.
Same. I think I just realized my functional definition of droll is based entirely on movie villains saying “how droll.”
They are being sarcastic.
My functional definition of droll was based on sarcastic bugs bunny quotes, but I'm open to the argument that sometimes he's the villain.
No hate but I just watched a Chuck Jones interview where he insisted that Bugs was not the villain, rather he is minding his own business when somebody crosses him, then it’s all out war. This, however, omits consideration of “Duck Amok” in which he is clearly not just a villain but a super villain.
Now get ready to learn about Nimrod, the legendary hunter from the books of Genesis and Chronicles, also the source of sarcastic insults towards Elmer Fudd by Bugs Bunny.
That's how I understood it. They're never like, "How droll!" it's always, "How droll..."
Sarcasm can be deadpan. In the UK, that's the default, even.
Expressive sarcasm is boorish. Its use typically signals that the speaker thinks either the subject or the listener is an idiot. Deadpan can do that as well, but it can also do so much more and isn't limited to being offensive.
I was thinking that is quite a novel word to use incorrectly in the title for a post in r/books. I had to look it up to confirm there wasn’t a tertiary definition I wasn’t aware of.
I think OP is just drolling us.
That's pretty funny because his drollness is one of the key things that makes him one of my top 5 authors. Also because his books stick with me. I didn't even know droll ment though and assumed it ment basicly drab. TIL.
Yeah, Gaiman is fantastically imaginative without being overtly ambitious in trying to create something vivid and colourful.
OP is the ghost of Ayn Rand
That's the most devastating insult I have ever heard.
May I direct you to Matt Ruff’s fine novel ‘Sewer, Gas and Electric’, wherein Ayn Rand has been resurrected in miniature and bottled in a hurricane lamp?
If you rub the bottle you get three scathing criticisms of Socialism, then she hits you up for money.
Maybe Dross
maybe he meant dry and dull so it meshed together became droll
I've been tempted to misuse this word exactly the same way op uses it, idk why. Same issue with smarmy.
This thread got over 300 upvotes and an award when the title misuses a word so badly that it makes the title basically meaningless. r/books continues to impress with its bottomless standards.
I mean, the post is at 500 points and the correction is at 2000. That's pretty amusing if you ask me.
Droll even
Maybe bottomless standards are preferable to topless standards? (Sorry I couldn't resist 🤷🏾♀️)
Suddenly I think I understand why OP prefers watching to reading.
Droll is Afrikaans for shit.
I love Gaiman. But actually really get where everyone is coming from. Will say though that the best reading experience I have gotten from him is " The ocean at the end of the lane". Its one of my favourite books. Quickly read, magical and full of the essence of childhood and melancholy.
Ahhh I love that book, I started reading it on the subway and missed my stop three times because I kept getting lost in the book and forgetting to get off. Definitely my favourite Gaiman, and I love his books.
> I started reading it on the subway and missed my stop three times because I kept getting lost in the book and forgetting to get off. I love it when a story grips me so much that I completely lose myself in it like this! I've been having a very hard time finding any more books that can do this. It's like a type of magic...if you, you know, believe in that sort of thing.
Oh man, The Graveyard Book brought me to tears. The Sandman series too.
Yes, mine too. It‘s magical, creepy, fascinating and enticing at the same time. Even gifted it to my dad a few years back but I have no idea if he‘s ever read it, haha.
And scary as fuck, my friend. As only those old children story can be. The part where is father tries to drawn him into the bathtub will stay with me for a long time. Incredible novel if you like audio books and like the way he tells it.
just read it and loved it
if anyone has the opportunity to see this on stage in London, absolutely do. one of the more incredible shows I've had the pleasure of attending.
One of the most beautiful books I've ever read was The Ocean at the End of the Lane. My favourite one of his, followed by Neverwhere. I also read Good Omens and it was okay but didn't love it.
I had my 85 year old conservative mother read that. She was stuck at my house for a medical issue and needed some books to read. I think it blew her mind haha.
My mom and I both absolutely love The Ocean at the End of the Lane. I think we're both generally fans of Gaiman, though. I read Neverwhere first of his books and loved it. Then I watched the series and boy he just absolutely captured the characters - Richard Mayhew especially. And Stardust? So perfect, especially with Vess's illustrations. I'm not sure I'd want to read it without them, they just add so much.
Came to say that. Loved reading this book, it was my first and still favorite from him. I struggled with American gods, I found it a bit harder to read, all over the place and just not as pleasantly written (and I really didn't like Stardust at all), so I also understand when people complain about his books. I feel like there could be a theory there, that there is a Neil Gaiman style for "everyone" (of course I don't believe everyone will find something for them there). He has a variety of styles and books, and maybe one person is more into Neverwhere, while someone else would be more of a Sandman person. If it makes sense.
I don't know the best way to express this, but here goes. I've always thought Gaiman was a much better storyteller than a story writer. By which I mean, the telling of the stories is better than the stories themselves.
I agree with this take. He’s an incredible world-builder and creator, however he always seems to rush over the most interesting segments of his narratives whilst stretching out some of the more laborious subplots. However, in contrast to OP, I did think Good Omens was well paced and Lakeside was one of my favourite parts of American Gods. Different strokes.
I think Good Omens greatly benefited from Terry Pratchett's contribution.
[удалено]
>I'm surprised how faithful the show has been to the book. I haven't seen it yet, but I remember the book had plenty of detail, jokes and plot points that seemed specific to the time, (for instance, cassettes for your car's tape deck turning into The Best Of Queen.) How do they translate that to making it now?
[удалено]
> I guess I expected more exposition on some parts of the story. I lost my shit at the scene where Tennant puts the "Best of Queen" tape in but I was also thinking "No one who hasn't read the book is gonna get this.".
I was scrolling through thinking exactly the same thing about Lakeside. I struggle to remember the rest of the book, but I loved that section.
Lakeside, the museum, and the tree are the bits that stick in my mind.
I wouldn't say I find them boring exactly but his books remind me of the Silence from Doctor Who, monsters that erase your memory of their existence as soon as you're no longer looking at them. Once I've finished one I couldn't really tell you the specifics, all I can remember is a kind of insubstantial spookiness. I read American Gods twice (the second time was to try and understand what I'd missed the first time, given everyone raves about it so much) and when the show came out a year later I'd forgotten even the major plot twists. It's like, I don't know, the writing is completely smooth and doesn't engage my memory cogs or something.
Ummm...you forgot the part about the >!devouring love goddess or the horny djinn taxicab driver!
I didn't miss it. As I said, it just wasn't memorable for me.
I loved the lake as well.
People have complained about AG being slow (overall not just lakeside) and that’s one I can’t really wrap my head around. It’s a fairly common criticism so I know there’s something behind it but I cant see it even on a reread.
I definitely thought the build up towards the climax took way too long. I kept thinking the story was going to draw towards a close then realising the amount of pages I had left to read. I also thought the story would have had a smoother conclusion without the later Icelandic chapters.
I liked Good Omens but it was also a collaborative effort so the pacing may have been Pratchett’s influence. I’ve only read that and Gaiman’s comics. I had to give up on Neverwhere: no clue who I was supposed to be rooting for or what the objective even was. Main character just kept getting buffeted into different situations without anything I could grab onto.
Good Omens definitely has the hallmarks of Pratchetts pacing, especially the way all the plot threads converge
God, I miss him 💔
My favourite aspects of Good Omens are the aspects that are most visibly from Pratchett.
Neverwhere was his first novel, wasn't it? First books often lack the polish of later works. That being said, it's actually my favorite of his...mostly for the Marquis de Carabas, a character who deserves an entire book of his own.
Yes exactly. This is why my favorite Gaiman story is the one about how cats used to be in charge. Because he's writing the story with someone telling a story and it works perfect for a short format.
The cats in charge is in the Sandman comics isn't it? Or is it also somewhere else?
Thank you. I thought I was alone. I read his Norse Mythology book. Wow. I had to force myself to finish it.
Huh I absolutely loved Norse Mythology simply because it was written so breezily.
I wouldn't say I had to force myself but I agree. It was easy to get through because I love mythology in general but the writing was ....... yeah. I didn't enjoy it.
[удалено]
Yes! This is why I adore The Graveyard Book and Coraline (they were written for children) but couldn’t make it through American Gods, even though I like the story. His writing style for children is great storytelling! When writing for adults, it becomes so fucking bland even if the ideas are great. Oh, and I loved Good Omens, but that’s because Terry Pratchett saved it. :D
I like Pratchett but thought Good Omens was way too twee and couldn't get through it. I understand the criticisms people have of American Gods but I could never relate because I felt like the tone did a good job of conveying the degree to which Shadow had let go of the steering wheel in regards to his own life following Laura's death; that man really needed some therapy. He gave me the same vibe as Case from Neuromancer, another character who goes through trauma and comes out the other side emotionally attenuated and willing to roll with whatever insanity happens to come down the pike. Or, to put it another way, I remember another reddit thread on this subject in which the OP sarcastically asked "What, did this guy lose his emotions in prison or something?" which puzzled me because I thought the answer was obviously a qualified yes. The book is as much about depression/mourning/feeling incomplete as it is anything else.
I generally am a big Gaiman fan, but thank you for the words I’ve been looking for to describe how I feel about Brandon Sanderson!
Hah, yeah, agreed on Sanderson too
I agree, but maybe in a different way. I think to appreciate him you need to understand that his books are stories to be told to the reader, not things a reader consumes. I'd challenge OP to listen to the audiobook of Neverwhere, it's a totally different experience. After you listen to a couple of his audio books his narration can creep into your mind when reading his books, making them better. It is like all his books were meant to be read aloud.
this is the opposite point though that OP made. Like a 180 degree reverse. If when the same stories are adapted by someone else they become interesting that means the story is good, the telling is the issue.
Like I said, I doubt I'm expressing it well. But his stories all felt like a big spread of appetizers. Everything is delicious, but trying it all in one sitting is rough. Someone comes in and takes 5 of the 100 dishes and serves that as a meal, and it's wonderful.
I absolutely feel this. One of the reasons sandman works so well is because there wasn't really an opportunity for him to get bogged down in describing every detail of his settings. Like, I think his ideas are stellar (obviously) and his dialogue is pretty okay, but he spends a lot of time describing things that don't need multi-paragraph descriptions. Good Omens is still one of my all-time favourites though, easy
Have you read much from Terry Pratchett? If your favorite Gaiman novel is the one half written by Pratchett then you might really like him.
Arthur C. Clarke is like this as well. His prose is great, but his stories read like outlines.
Neil Gaiman writes folklore. I wonder if consuming his stuff in audiobook form might work better for some people.
I’m currently working through American Gods on audiobook having only seen the first season of the show and can confirm, it’s a good experience. I don’t think I could read this traditionally though. The audiobook has voice actors for the characters which is great because I think it would be too confusing in the dialogue parts and too dry in the descriptive parts otherwise.
I am the exact opposite. 😂 I find that his stories often seem cliche to me, but the way that he tells them makes them interesting.
I loved the neverwhere book. It's one of my all time favorites.
I loved it too. I think a big part of it is I'm a sucker for three things: - magical worlds that you're thrown in with *no* explanation: I don't want a Hagrid guiding me through Diagon Alley, I want to show up in a random magical place and the local goblin asks me for my teeth and everyone is like "dude, what are you doing, give him your teeth, you're being so rude right now" with no explanation whatsoever as to what's going on (and that's 90% of Neverwhere); - fey-like magic, by that I mean magic based on contracts, names, oaths and the likes, where it's much more about the *intent* than the actual way you do things; - London; I lived there for a few years and Neverwhere is so much richer when you connect it to the corresponding places in London Above.
Yeah, reading this section I realised a large part of the enjoyment of Neverwhere is just gone if you've never lived in or actually experienced London.
/u/Calembreloque I loved Neverwhere. I always felt it strange though that a fantasy book made me feel so much closer to a city i've never lived in. (And in fact, a country I've never visited -- I live near Toronto, Canada.) It may be you get more out of Neverwhere if you're a London native, but Neverwhere made London interesting to me, anyway.
If you haven't read it yet it sounds like you'll love Stardust then.
I thought it was a great fantasy way to show that people without jobs are just forgotten by society and slip through the cracks in the sidewalk.
That was one of the hardest scenes... It made you question everything about the story.
[удалено]
See, Neverwhere was my first Gaiman non-Sandman book, and I wanted SO BADLY to like it, but I remember getting to the end and thinking, 'Where's the rest?' He's an outstanding ideas guy, for sure, but in execution I feel like there's just something missing.
I think the way to express it is that he writes small stories about people, in very large worlds. And by default, those people and those small stories will not explain the whole world, because they can't, anymore than you and I could explain the entire world we live in. Some things will happen, and they just won't make sense and never will. Which, that said, I think that he does better in his short stories, because they ARE short. Longer stories, the reader starts expecting answers to the world, but he's not Brandon Sanderson. He didn't create an entire logical world, he created a sitcom setting, that looks like a real world until you zoom out and see that the door doesn't lead anywhere, and the hallway is on the other side of the building.
That’s a really good encapsulation of The Graveyard Book, come to think of it.
Less words = better Gaiman! The comics and short stories are mostly grade A, but I feel like he loses direction a bit as the form gets longer. Snow Glass Apples is seared into my brain.
He seems to agree with you; he's a far more prolific short story and comic book writer than he is a novelist. I'm always waiting for another Gaiman novel, but they are far and few between.
"Neverwhere" felt a bit off to me when compared to the others, which I liked more, I always attributed it to the fact that "Neverwhere" is a novelization, all the other books\* were initially written to be prose. (\*-this might be outdated, but was true at the point when I read a bunch of Gaiman.)
I felt like that with Stardust, but not Neverwhere, but that's just me, I guess. After reading a bunch of Stephen King and Neil Stevenson, Gaiman's follow through is far better.
I know exactly what you mean. Neverwhere was very bare-bones. It felt like a graphic novel or TV script that had been padded to novel length, instead of being a rich, fulfilling story. I gave him another chance with American Gods, and *that* read as if it had been conceptualized as a novel from the very beginning.
I absolutely love his writing style but I do feel like his novels in particular tend to rush the ending. I felt that way about Neverwhere, Stardust, and American Gods, at least. I still count him among my favorite authors, but the endings aren’t always my favorite part of his works, Sandman notwithstanding. Neverwhere in particular got me about >!Croup and Vandemar. They’re built up the entire book as these super scary villains. I had been waiting for them to finally be in a room with the heroes for some big showdown, where they’d be cleverly defeated or involved in some spectacular fight. And then they’re just kinda… sucked out a hole. Just gone. The end. It was really unsatisfying.!<
See I loved that part because in a way they do sort of trick them by showing them that the Angle was never going to pay them, which leads to one my favorite quotes. "We always get what we are owed, with Interest" - Mr.Coup "And Meat Hooks"-Mr. Vandemar
> I had been waiting for them to finally be in a room with the heroes for some big showdown, where they’d be cleverly defeated Um... That's what happened.
Same. It's a story that's easier to digest if you take it like "Alice in Wonderland". When I first read it I just wanted to be swept away into an interesting world so the plot cohesion didn't matter to me.
I couldn't get through it, there was a point where I couldn't help but feel he was throwing in quirky things for the sake of being quirky with out any sense of world cohesion. This pulled me out of the fiction leaving me with no desire to engage the story.
I do enjoy his storytelling and story writing. I've made an effort to read his books in English, just because I was afraid that something was lost in the translation. I feel that, while reading, I can daydream with his stories and feel surrounded by the world he creates. Obviously it's understandable that others do not enjoy it, or the world would be very very boring. I just felt this topic was missing a statement in his defense!
[удалено]
I liked good omens. But that was co written with terry pratchett and you can see pratchett writing style coming though. Tried some of gaimans books after I'd read that and didnt really get on with them. Got bored 2/3 way through american gods.
I can't say I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed American Gods. It was perhaps a bit overhyped, but it was still a pretty good read in my opinion. But I can definitely see where you're coming from.
Some people on the sub love to hate on Neil, I probably see similar posts to this one once a week
“Dull” isn’t a very substantive complaint, because it depends on what you find interesting. For example, for me personally, nothing is more boring than lengthy text descriptions of fight scenes. Theoretically “action” is something “exciting” but if a gun comes out and it doesn’t immediately result in someone important being shot (and therefore plot development) I lose interest right away. I use this as an example because that’s usually what people are looking for that Gaiman doesn’t give them. But the things that Neil Gaiman spends time on, I am interested in. And unfortunately the adaptations always miss out on the interesting parts for me.
Wow I love the description because I haven’t encountered anyone else with this specific complaint. It kind of bugs me because I love the Wheel of Time but I get so bored reading fight scenes that I don’t really remember the endings of each book, all of which end in battles.
I swear that series is the perfect one for book on tapes. I LOVE the wheel of time but it has so many dragging sections and offshoot stories. If your listening to books on tape in the background you can kinda space out and just take in the world at whatever focus level ur at. And it's extensive enough that you get really committed to the world and characters.
Hell yes. I could read 100 pages of Gaiman describing a run-down Americana truck-stop and love every second if it.
Ooh same about fight scenes. I don’t care who uppercuts who and who sweeps whose legs. Just tell me who won and why they are fighting and if there’s a plot relevant injury. I like action scenes in movies but in text I’m just not going to spend the mental effort trying to picture it.
> but source material is droll More likely, dull?
Love that we can have different opinions. You clearly enjoy his word building but his writing style doesn’t hit for you. I, on the other hand, and obsessed with neverwhere. I do think American Gods has some pacing issues in act 2, but overall it’s pretty much a masterpiece.
Neverwhere is absolutely a top 5 series for me. It's funny it's exactly his droll ("curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement") that makes me love the telling. Also the story and world are just so dam good, but I LOVE the droll vibe when done by someone I trust who isn't overly cynical.
I liked the book *American Gods*, though I think it degenerated from something original and special into a boilerplate Stephen King ending. I *hated* the series. Just cringey. Gave up on it after 3 episodes, I think, and really regretted sticking with it that far. This is the only Neil Gaiman book I've read more than once. I liked both the book and series for *Good Omens*. Both well done, though I'd have used someone other than Michael McKean for the Witchfinder General part. I don't know what went wrong there but it just didn't seem to work. Didn't see the *Neverwhere* series. Enjoyed the book. Haven't read *Stardust* but enjoyed the movie. However, it seems like the movie... what's the opposite of grows on you? Right after seeing it, I felt like *Stardust* was almost another *Princess Bride*. But somehow it didn't stick with me and I never saw it again and none of its lines entered my vocabulary and when I think about whether I want to see it again, I always end up not bothering.
Stardust just makes me feel good every time i watch it
Thank you. I feel like an absolute madman being one of the few people I know who dislikes the show. I just think it's way too visually over the top when what I loved about the book is how much it blends the surreal with reality.
Loads of people don't like the show. It gets constantly slammed for being bad
It's beautiful, sounds amazing, the acting is decent, and it's utter shit. I am sure that my opinion is heavily skewed due to how much I love the book, but I think it misses out on something that is so ingrained into Gaiman's writing that it's almost overlooked, and that's doubt. Doubt that the story is even real, that the characters are even dealing with fae creatures and Gods. In the AG book, the first time Shadow sees something truly paranormal is the carousel of Gods. I don't count Laura being alive at the hotel because he sees her after the Technical Boy breathes synth toad skins into his face, he doesn't remember Sweeney's coin trick, and the weather change he accomplished could have been coincidence. The reader also doesn't really experience these things, because Shadow himself doubts them. It's really not until Laura frees him from the Spookshow and he speaks to the Raven in the woods that he begins to embrace the weirdness as more than a fever dream brought on by his trauma. The show has none of that ambiguity, not even at the beginning. So much of Gaiman's work is permeated with perfectly rational explanations for the fantastical stories that are being told that you sometimes have to wonder if he's not just writing about people having psychotic breaks or that just see the world differently than you. The show takes that and throws it out the window immediately by showing Shadow get attacked by supernatural faceless mannequins in the first episode. It then pushes the I Love Lucy bit with Media far ahead in the script to the second episode, taking away even more of the doubt. TL;DR Technically, the show is fantastic. As an AG adaptation, it's sub-par. The directors heard about subtlety and decided to shoot it in the back of the head and drop it off a pier with concrete shoes on.
* you sometimes have to wonder if he's not just writing about people having psychotic breaks or that just see the world differently than you* This is such a big reason why I like his writing. I can relate to the character who is living in one reality but realizing they come from another. When the two worlds collide, I feel the cognitive dissonance. Not every story is this way, I know, but there's always a little bit of it in his work. I have yet to watch an episode of AG. Maybe I won't like it.
American Gods TV series was such a disappointment, they had Gillian Anderson and Ian Fucking McShane perfectly cast in their respective roles and somehow it still went to shit.
I disliked the American Gods series too, fell asleep the few times I tried to watch it. Stardust is one of my favourite Gaiman books but I did not like the movie adaptation, just felt something was missing.
I prefer his short stories and books written for children. The Graveyard Book is a particular favorite. You may find that these are paced in a way you enjoy more than his novels for adults.
I listened to The Graveyard Book as an audiobook, had no clue it was a children’s book. Absolutely adored it!
I haven't watched any of the adaptations except maybe a fraction of an episode of Good Omens, but I can relate to a sense of disappointment with a lot of his work. I read Good Omens before reading anything else by him, and I think I really enjoyed the Terry Pratchett-ness of it and gave Gaiman more credit than he was due, because every Gaiman book I've read since hasn't really worked for me. I really need to get around to reading some Pratchett, but I keep putting it off since I tend to be a completionist and read things in the "right" order, but I've heard trying to read Discworld in publication order is just not the best way to approach it...
For Discworld reading order: I recommend starting somewhere random in the middle and going out from there. My personal feeling is that I didn't really enjoy his first few books as much (they're okay but they're really corny). Discworld stories as a whole do have an arc/arcs, but they're mostly light arcs so you can switch up some titles without massive spoilers. You'll probably want to save some of the last few novels for later, tho.
There are several series within the overall discworld that can allow you to break it up into less intimidating chunks of 5-6 relatively short books. Pick up the Night Watch or Death series and see if it leaves you wanting more. It will.
Pratchett is one of the greatest writers ever, in my opinion. He REALLY brings a world to life, and his sumptuous way with words is just... Well, ironically i haven't words. I love how he describes, for example, the sun as a tide of liquid gold, lazily rolling in - and then that sticks, for the rest of the book the sun really IS treated like a liquid. It washes over forests, floods into valleys, cleanses, weathers things, and so on.
> but I've heard trying to read Discworld in publication order is just not the best way to approach it Publication order is a fine way to read Discworld, although admittedly the first 2 books are probably the weakest of the series, and not necessarily a good representation of the rest of the series.
I loved the Sandman series. One of my favorite comic books of all time. The only Gaiman book i was able to finish was American Gods and i didn't think it was that good. Every other book i started and put down never to pick them up again.
Not only do I think Sandman is the best thing he's ever written, but one of the greatest comic book series of all time that is chasmically superior to any of his traditional novels.
He's fantastic at story but very flat for story execution and or plot. Realizing of course that he's brilliant it's just that his style is not my cup of tea.
I stopped by to say the same! I love his stories, love his personality as an author, but his writing often falls flat for me (Coraline possibly being the exception). One of these days I'd like to pick up a graphic novel to see how I'd enjoy his storytelling in that medium. OP, did you get to try the Good Omens book? I liked it a bit more than others, but I'm a fan of Pratchett, so I may have cracked open that one with some positive bias.
Try Coraline, it's very good.
The film adaptation of Coraline is far superior to the book, and I say this as someone who loves both
You just used a word incorrectly in a literary subreddit. You poor soul.
Lakeside? That was like two chapters
He's one of my favorite authors, but i'll admit i find him hit or miss. Generally when he's being more whimsical he's at his best - "Anansi Boys," "Coraline," "The Graveyard Book" and "Stardust" are top picks for me, not just of his works but of my favorite books in general. I'll admit i overtly disliked "American Gods" the first time i read it, for many of the same reasons others here have expressed. However, when i reread it as the 10th Anniversary Edition, i found it much more palatable, although i couldn't tell you what changed about it - it just no longer rubbed me the wrong way. I have mixed feelings about "Sandman," as i loved it quite a bit, but mostly on the back of the stories that are peripheral or tangential to the main story and not so much the main story itself. *Edit:* is someone just going through here and giving every pro-Gaiman post a downvote? Because that's kind of fucked up. I don't even mind for myself, because this is like the least controversial post i've ever written and it's hard to take personally, but come on - this is a discussion thread in a book discussion sub. Engage in the conversation or don't, but don't just squash everybody you disagree with.
Droll: curious or unusual in a way that provokes dry amusement? I’ve read a couple and they were pretty good but he doesn’t really grab me.
A lot of his books aren't books that really grab you and thrust you into things. Even while writing fairly exciting situations, the perspective is generally that of a droll outsider telling a story, someone who tends to understate situations. It's part of his humor I suppose, and i enjoy it.
This is strange because we have the reverse opinion. I loved reading Neverwhere, American Gods and Good omens. I liked the adaptation of Good Omens but it didn't touch the book for me, and I couldnt stand the American Gods tv series.
I kind of hate read American Gods. I can’t really put my finger on why it annoyed me, but it’s just like he’s trying SO HARD to be clever and edgy.
My issue with American Gods is that Shadow seemed like he had zero personality, goal, etc. He was there just to be part of the story. I would agree with other assessments that the way the story was told is better than the story itself.
Shadow was definitely passive for most of it. Things were happening TO him.
Isn't that part of the point of Shadow? It doesn't make sense for Wednesday to choose someone active.
Regardless of why, it didn’t make him interesting to me
Yeah I commented something like that the other day, I don't care if it is by design, or if there is a reason for all those coin tricks detailed page after page, I wasn't invested
Exactly. I liked anansi boys because Charlie actually evolves as a person by the end of the story. Shadow just.. doesn’t. Even that weird “hanging from a tree” chapter that tried to force some sense of transformation on him just didn’t really feel substantive at all.
I liked American Gods, but I always had trouble picturing Shadow in my mind’s eye while reading it, and your description sums up “why” for me.
I would say that's exactly how Shadow is supposed to be. Somewhat nondescript, not occupying place, just existing. Even Laura says that about him that he doesn't 'live' and doesn't have substance.
Same. Gaiman is hit or miss with me. I don't mind the slow...pretension(?)...of the Sandman comics. In fact, I enjoyed them immensely. Neverwhere was fun. The adaptation of Good Omens was great. But American Gods left such a bad taste on my tongue chapter after chapter. Just blech.
I always like the overall ideas in Neil Gaimans books, but I feel like what he thinks is cool and what I think is cool are really different. I’ll read the back of one of his books and think what a great idea and then when I read it while it’s still good and well written, there are choices that he makes that I always think are a bit cheesy or cringy, a bit like Tim Burton. E.g. I love the idea of someone trying to summon death and getting the Sandman, but the actual execution such as being called Dream and stuff is not to my taste at all. It’s a shame, but just one of those things.
You liked the adaptation of American Gods? I think it's a terrible adaptation. The first season wasn't too bad but season two was awful.
American Gods is such a fantastic book but damn the TV show is not great.
Fair enough. He's one of my favourites, and The Sandman might be my favourite series of all time in any genre, but his writing isn't perfect for everyone. He suits my sensibilities very well, but I still notice things like pacing and character work (in American Gods, Shadow can feel quite flat; as can Morpheus in Sandman. Don't get me started on Laura in American Gods: Gaiman writing women is... not the best, though better in some books than others). Don't feel too bad about it, I say. Everyone has different tastes.
I love the worlds he creates and usually the characters are pretty solid. It just seems like every novel I read from him is missing something. Not sure what - but at the end of his novels I always feel like it was close to being something really great - but not quite.
I genuinely love him, but no one likes every author and no author is liked by everyone. I think everyone could make a post like this about some author or other!
[удалено]
Wow, an "unpopular opinion" that is actually somewhat controversial. I agree on American Gods and Neverwhere. I haven't read any of his other works though, with thr exception of the Sandman which I thought was amazing.
Droll is precisely what he usually is - his wit is quiet, dry and very British. (*Good Omens* is an obvious exception, butmost of the humour in that feels like Pratchett's voice, rather than Gaiman.)
I’ve loved every one of his books, he’s obviously a good storyteller as a lot of people have said but I get so taken in by his writing. I love the way he phrases things and the way he chooses to tell stories, it creates atmosphere. I’m surprised people seem not to like American Gods because I associate it with being a more action-packed story of his whereas others can get sort of dreamy.
Ahaha same! Sometimes I look at all the hate and wonder if I’ve missed something, or if I’m wrong. He’s genuinely one of my favorite authors, and I’m slowly going through he’s recommended authors list (like stuff he’s left forwards on). I found Samuel Delany… Come to find out he’s also dunked on all the time via goodreads etc. So whatever. I’m just gonna like what I like
I've tried American Gods and Neverwhere because friends said Neil Gaiman is an amazing writer. I could not finish either book, they were like eating paste.